When a professor, who has been an independent UN expert for many years, talks about a violation of international law and order, this is at least worth listening to.

We met Alfred de Zayas in Geneva on the eve of regular Russian-American talks.

There was a Western information howl all around on the topic that Russia was about to attack Ukraine (but so far nothing) and these negotiations were almost the last chance, although it was obvious that the meeting was intermediate, clarifying, detailing Russian concerns and expectations in the sphere security.

The professor, being an American to the bone, nevertheless managed to rise above the American sense of exceptionalism with his brain.

He played, probably, high intelligence and experience of living in neutral Switzerland.

From the height of this hill, he could clearly see what a disgrace is going on in the plane of international law and what role NATO plays in this, with the United States at the head.

I'll quote it verbatim:

“Personally, I view NATO as a village bully.

But most Americans aren't there yet, perhaps because NATO automatically proclaims itself to be a supporter of democracy and human rights.

I would ask the victims of drones and depleted uranium in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yugoslavia what they think of the NATO pedigree.

NATO relies on the "exceptionalism" dogma that the United States has practiced for more than two centuries.

Following the doctrine of "exclusivity", the US and NATO are above international law - even above natural law.

NATO boss Stoltenberg is as much a warmonger, manipulator and propagandist as politicians in Washington and London.

NATO not only threatens geopolitical rivals, but actually plunders and exploits its members - not for their own security, but in the interests of the military-industrial complex.

But Western audiences are being told something different day after day.

They hammer in the idea that Russia is a threat, it is an armed angry bear with whom it makes no sense to talk.

He only sleeps and sees how to win someone.

Whatever newspaper you open here in Belgium or in France, with rare exceptions, they write like a carbon copy.

Many cartoons have been drawn on this topic, hundreds of articles have been published.

I repeat, every day.

Being subjected to such massive processing, the average consumer of this information, due to other concerns, rarely tries to figure it out, he takes everything on faith.

And so Mr. Professor makes the assumption that NATO is such a secular religion.

Only in this way, according to him, can it be explained that adult educated people accept those streams of absurdity that pour from the lips of the same Stoltenberg.

Here's another quote:

“While the US and NATO narratives have been found to be inaccurate and sometimes deliberately false on countless occasions, the fact is that most citizens of the Western world uncritically believe what they are told.

"Quality press" including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times, Le Monde, El País, NZZ, and FAZ are all effective echo chambers for the Washington consensus and enthusiastically support an offensive geopolitical propaganda operation.

The ancient Roman philosopher Tertullian is credited with the expression "I believe because it is absurd."

Apparently, NATO propaganda successfully uses the same principle.

“What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is debatable. NATO's creed is somewhat Calvinist - a creed for the "chosen ones". And we in the West are, by definition, "the chosen ones." Only we will be saved. All this can be taken for granted. Like any religion, the NATO religion has its own dogma and lexicon. In the NATO lexicon, a coup d'état means "color revolution", capitalism means "democracy", humanitarian intervention means "regime change", "rule of law" means OUR rules, Satan #1 is Russia, and Satan #2 is Xi Jinping.

According to popular belief, the crimes committed by NATO over the past 73 years are not crimes, but regrettable mistakes.

But it is quite likely that in 30, 50, 80 years, NATO propaganda will become a universally recognized historical truth, firmly cemented and repeated in the history books.

This is partly due to the fact that most historians, like lawyers, are self-employed.

Forget the illusion that over time historical objectivity becomes stronger.

On the contrary, all the rumors that eyewitnesses can debunk today eventually become the accepted historical narrative after the experts have become dead and can no longer dispute these stories.

Forget about the declassified documents that debunk this narrative, because experience shows that only very rarely can they change an entrenched political lie.

Indeed, political lies will not die until they cease to be politically useful.”

As clearly seen today in the example of the Second World War.

In the same Eastern Europe, everything is distorted, events are turned upside down, historical truth is trampled, monuments are demolished, books are rewritten, the image of our liberator soldier is denigrated, and real witnesses of that era who could object at least something, alas, almost does not remain.

All that remains is the memory that lives in our hearts and passed on to our children.

She is still able to withstand all this madness with us.

But who will win in the end - their fiction or our truth?

Take the story with the promise given to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand to the east.

It is mentioned in the archives, in the memoirs of contemporaries.

But the Americans are now arguing this: they say, it was a long time ago and all fiction, no one promised anything to anyone.

But the oral gentlemen's agreement, the professor emphasizes, also always had force and was binding:

“One of the greatest achievements of civilization and the rule of law is the observance of treaties.

The duty to keep one's word.

When a promise is made, it must be kept in good faith, and not undermined, rethought, softened.

This is a matter of honor.

But it seems that in the West we no longer have honor and that we have deliberately deceived the Russians.

We have created a 'fait accompli' and expect the Russians to take it that way."

The logic is simple.

If the entire enlightened American world and European countries perceive the preparation of an attack on Ukraine as a fait accompli, if The New York Times endlessly publishes various maps and schemes of the attack, then why won't the Russians believe it?

Yes, because no one wants war.

They don't understand this.

I return the floor to the professor.

“From an objective point of view, the expansion of NATO and the incessant provocations of Russia were and remain a dangerous geopolitical mistake, a betrayal of the trust that the Russian people deserve, and even worse, a betrayal of the hope for peace, which is shared by the vast majority of humanity.

How was this betrayal possible?

Only through disinformation and propaganda.

Only thanks to the complicity of the corporate media, which applauded Fukuyama's "end of history" and "winner takes all" ideas.

For a while, NATO reveled in the illusion of a single hegemon.

How long did this chimera of a unipolar world last?

And how many atrocities were committed by NATO to impose its hegemony on the world, how many crimes against humanity were committed in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen?

Indeed, we need to calm down and stop attacking everyone else - stop both military and informational aggression.

If there is a country that cares very little about the international rule of law, otherwise known as Blinken's "rules-based international order", it is, alas, my country, the United States of America."

Here, as they say, neither add nor subtract.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.